Apple to Launch 2880x1800 Resolution 'Retina Display' MacBook Pro in Q2 2012?

[xper]

I'm not talking about UI objects and the iPhone 4 scaling them up or not! I'm talking about WEBSITES!

Go to Google Images, load a 100x100 image on an iPhone 4 and a 3GS, and the image will not be the same physical size on both screens! It can't be! That is my point..

Dude, what are you not understanding, i clearly said NON UI items and yes i talked about website and photos on websites also, i clearly stated that, and no, they WILL have the same physical size on both screens................

As i said, how often do you hear iPhone 4 users complain about website photos being to small so they constantly have to zoom the photos to see them as intended? Never........

 

[kolax]

Right, the argument is being sidetracked onto whether retina displays (in HiDPI mode) will upscale images, so elements are the same size. I'm not disputing that - there's been a confusion between what I was arguing and what xper was interpreting, and it's gotten muddled.

The argument that I've been stating all along:

Stretching an image from say 100x100 pixels to 200x200 pixels will result in image clarity loss and slight pixelation. Even if the retina display doubles everything so all elements stay the same size, images that are being stretched to fit the retina display resolution (2880x1800) will suffer, and not look as sharp as they do on a 1440x900 display because the image is being stretched beyond its original resolution.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm talking about the clarity - the image is being pushed beyond its intended resolution.

Lighting up 4 pixels the same color as 1 pixel, if that 4 pixel cluster is the same size as the 1 pixel does not impact the image clarity at all.

That's the whole point. God, forget it, you're right, it'll look pixelated.

Happy ? I'm just glad I actually understand this stuff.

 

[guzhogi]

Lighting up 4 pixels the same color as 1 pixel, if that 4 pixel cluster is the same size as the 1 pixel does not impact the image clarity at all.

Agreed. It depends on whether you want it in the same physical dimensions (like inches) or pixel dimensions.

 

[KnightWRX]

With a picture that's maybe 200 X 200 pixels, wouldn't it depend whether your asking it to display at the same physical dimensions vs. pixel dimensions. Example: if had it set to be 2 inches by 2 inches, it'll look the same since an iPhone 4 would just pixel double everything.

However, if you want the picture to be 200 x 200 pixels wide/tall, it wouldn't it take up half the size on the iPhone 4?

Yes, but we're not talking about using the 2880x1800 as a 2880x1800 screen here, but using it as a HiDPI display. Something it seems some posters can't quite grasp.

 

[kolax]

Lighting up 4 pixels the same color as 1 pixel, if that 4 pixel cluster is the same size as the 1 pixel does not impact the image clarity at all.

Maybe took longer to get my head round it, but the wording there triggered it. What does one do around here when they admit they are wrong?

 

[seek3r]

You are wrong, have you even used an iPhone 4? An 300x300px image will have the same size on both 3Gs and iP4, thats how the retina work, it doesnt use the resolution of the retina display as actual displayed resolution. Thats how retina work, it uses 4 pixels to display every "regular" pixels, the system remaps on the fly. How would your statement even work? When using safari every building block on an homepage would be supersmall if a retina system didnt remap.....



"I think you are failing to understand that things only look sharp on LCD displays when they are at their native resolution"

Just goes to show that you dont know how retina works, this is not the same thing.......a retina display always uses its native resolution........

Uh, no. Retina is a marketing term defined by not being to discern individual pixels from the standard viewing distance of a device when viewing at native resolution.

What *you're* talking about, and how Apple *achieved* a "retina display" on the iphone without trouble to the UI, is called Resolution Independence.

 

[KnightWRX]

What *you're* talking about, and how Apple *achieved* a "retina display" on the iphone without trouble to the UI, is called Resolution Independence.

It's not resolution independance though on the iPhone 4. It's simply fitting 4 squares into 1.

 

[henrik-s]

That would not look good ... at all mate .. game always look best on monitor's native resolution, even if it only has 720p.

Played at half (exactly) resolution it won't look blurry.

 

[xper]

Right, the argument is being sidetracked onto whether retina displays (in HiDPI mode) will upscale images, so elements are the same size. I'm not disputing that - there's been a confusion between what I was arguing and what xper was interpreting, and it's gotten muddled.

Nope, the argument didnt get sidetracked, and no, there was no confusion between us, we talked about the same thing, you clearly said all along that a 300x300px image would not be the same physical size on iPhone 4 and iPhone 3Gs. And i said all along that it would, no confusion anywhere, you where just wrong all along...

 

[Colpeas]

Retina on a MacBook. Mmmm, sounds *NEAT* !

 

[Thunderhawks]

I too think a 30" laptop would be quite a leap forward in the mobile computing industry.

I have been posting about a 27 inch laptop many times and when not on the lap
hang it on the Apple ihook like an imac, connect a keyboard and we have a Lapdesktop,''Ready to get my pre-order in

 

[xper]

Uh, no. Retina is a marketing term defined by not being to discern individual pixels from the standard viewing distance of a device when viewing at native resolution.

What *you're* talking about, and how Apple *achieved* a "retina display" on the iphone without trouble to the UI, is called Resolution Independence.

Dude, if you read the post we clearly talked about iPhone 3G and iPhone 4s....so no point in trying to correct the "right" terms or anything.

 

[seek3r]

It's not resolution independance though on the iPhone 4. It's simply fitting 4 squares into 1.

::sigh::, yes it is, it's just made very easy to implement by using a display with a resolution made in a multiple of the original (and sharply limiting the resolutions the dev has permission to use in their UI).

In other words, things still formatted in the lower res take up the same physical space on the screen as the higher res graphics do: Resolution Independence.

Dude, if you read the post we clearly talked about iPhone 3G and iPhone 4s....so no point in trying to correct the "right" terms or anything.

See above, the same comment certainly applies to the 3G and 4S

 

[Thunderhawks]

Resolution Independence.

You have to be resolute to be independent.

4th of July comes to mind.

 

[L3F7-S1D3]

Geez guys, relax. Just because someone said something else doesn't mean you gotta be a douche. Fo'sho.

----------

I don't know all the technical ramifications to this, but I think they could probably run the desktop at 2880 x 1800 and just blow up the UI so that it's large enough to deal with (though obviously giving you more screen-pixel-real-estate than just the 1440 x 900 size UI). Thoughts?

 

[kolax]

KnightWRX - question to help me get my head round all this resolution stuff.

If I drop the resolution of the high-res 15" MacBook Pro (call it A) from 1680x1050 to 1440x900, and compare that to the standard-res 15" MacBook Pro of 1440x900 (call it B), then the clarity on 'A' won't be as sharp as 'B' even though they are the same size of screen. I know the LCD isn't at its native resolution in 'A', but given that the elements are the same size and resolution as 'B' why does 'A' not look as sharp? Or does images appear as sharp, it is the font scaling that suffers for what ever reason?

That's where my confusion has come in - as LCDs only look good at their native resolution and dropping them down below that impacts sharpness/clarity. That's what I based my previous augment on, because I assumed that elements would not look as sharp as they would on a 1440x900 display if the elements are the same resolution when upscaled to a 2880x1800 display of the same size.

I'm not arguing anymore here - just trying to get my head round it all.

 

[xper]

I don't know all the technical ramifications to this, but I think they could probably run the desktop at 2880 x 1800 and just blow up the UI so that it's large enough to deal with (though obviously giving you more screen-pixel-real-estate than just the 1440 x 900 size UI). Thoughts?

Yes, that would be possible, a desktop system that have resizable UI currently (maximize windows, resize windows) there wouldnt be a need to just double everything like the way iPhone 4 does it. Sure, some UI element should probably be doubled to look like intended but resizable areas where no UI image resides could be scaled to whatever usable size that works best. So yeah, the effective screen realestate could be more than 1440x900

 

[KnightWRX]

::sigh::, yes it is, it's just made very easy to implement by using a display with a resolution made in a multiple of the original (and sharply limiting the resolutions the dev has permission to use in their UI).

In other words, things still formatted in the lower res take up the same physical space on the screen as the higher res graphics do: Resolution Independence.

I don't call very strict requirements for resolution "independence" though, the iPhone 4 is still very dependent on its 960x640 resolution, which is exactly double the horizontal and vertical pixels of the 3GS.

Any other value of resolution wouldn't work, thus, this isn't really "independent".

 

[L3F7-S1D3]

What would happen if you displayed a 15" MBP at 2880 x 1800 and then they scaled up the UI to maybe 70-80% of what it is on current MBPs (1440 x 900 "UI size") so that the UI elements weren't quite as large, but were definitely readable. Wouldn't that work and make things look amazing? Obviously the UI elements would need to be scaled appropriately, but otherwise?

 

[seek3r]

KnightWRX - question to help me get my head round all this resolution stuff.

If I drop the resolution of the high-res 15" MacBook Pro (call it A) from 1680x1050 to 1440x900, and compare that to the standard-res 15" MacBook Pro of 1440x900 (call it B), then the clarity on 'A' won't be as sharp as 'B' even though they are the same size of screen. I know the LCD isn't at its native resolution in 'A', but given that the elements are the same size and resolution as 'B' why does 'A' not look as sharp? Or does images appear as sharp, it is the font scaling that suffers for what ever reason?

It's because you're driving it at a non native res, not just displaying objects formatted for that res on the screen. Essentially the LCD has to figure out some way of mapping those pixels itself, and it sucks at it. see wikipedia for a more thorough answer:here(which also has a brief comment about scaling to lower resolutions on screens that know how to map *certain* lower rez's properly, keeping them looking good)

That's where my confusion has come in - as LCDs only look good at their native resolution and dropping them down below that impacts sharpness/clarity. That's what I based my previous augment on, because I assumed that elements would not look as sharp as they would on a 1440x900 display if the elements are the same resolution when upscaled to a 2880x1800 display of the same size.

If the OS knows that the physical size of the screen hasn't changed, and since the old res is a multiple of the new res, you can display it just as it would have looked on the lower res screen (looking exactly the same), it will simply be using more pixels (taking up the same real estate) to do it. A graphic formatted with the higher res however would look sharper, since the OS would have more pixels to work with for smoothing, shading, etc on both the source and the display.

I'm not arguing anymore here - just trying to get my head round it all.

Hope that helps, I need coffee so that may not be all that intelligible

I don't call very strict requirements for resolution "independence" though, the iPhone 4 is still very dependent on its 960x640 resolution, which is exactly double the horizontal and vertical pixels of the 3GS.

Any other value of resolution wouldn't work, thus, this isn't really "independent".

True. Apple cheated a bit there

 

[KnightWRX]

KnightWRX - question to help me get my head round all this resolution stuff.

If I drop the resolution of the high-res 15" MacBook Pro (call it A) from 1680x1050 to 1440x900, and compare that to the standard-res 15" MacBook Pro of 1440x900 (call it B), then the clarity on 'A' won't be as sharp as 'B' even though they are the same size of screen. I know the LCD isn't at its native resolution in 'A', but given that the elements are the same size and resolution as 'B' why does 'A' not look as sharp? Or does images appear as sharp, it is the font scaling that suffers for what ever reason?

That's different. Like you say, this has to do with native resolution on the LCD vs a lower resolution. The system thus can't fit the pixels on the screen like it can on an analogue display since LCDs have a fixed number of pixels. Thus you're trying to display 1 pixel in something like 1.3 pixel of width.

A pixel can't be 2 colors, so the monitor has to compensate by doing some blending. This is what results in the blurry image at non-native resolution.

 

[xper]

What would happen if you displayed a 15" MBP at 2880 x 1800 and then they scaled up the UI to maybe 70-80% of what it is on current MBPs (1440 x 900 "UI size") so that the UI elements weren't quite as large, but were definitely readable. Wouldn't that work and make things look amazing? Obviously the UI elements would need to be scaled appropriately, but otherwise?

Yes, that would work.

The iPhone 4 could technically be able to do the same, but Apple wanted to keep every App looking exactly the same on all their phones no mather what resolution they have, hence the double pixels in both with and height on iP4.

 

[Surdos]

What a joke

...sorry but are you retarded?
how can they release a display like that when mobile gpus are ****. they will be even worse at that resolution which fyi isnt even supported by anything.
people who buy macs lack common sense and so does the person sending out rss news. most of the stuff posted is a load of ****. a sanity check every now and then will help you out massively

 

[kolax]

If the OS knows that the physical size of the screen hasn't changed, and since the old res is a multiple of the new res, you can display it just as it would have looked on the lower res screen (looking exactly the same), it will simply be using more pixels (taking up the same real estate) to do it. A graphic formatted with the higher res however would look sharper, since the OS would have more pixels to work with for smoothing, shading, etc on both the source and the display.

Hope that helps, I need coffee so that may not be all that intelligible

So it's purely because the LCD isn't at its native resolution? LCDs can upscale well (in the case here for doubling web image resolutions for retina display) but not downscale well? So while every element will be the same size on a 15" display at a non-native 1440x900 resolution, it won't be as sharp as it would be on a native 15" display at 1440x900? Even though it is using the same amount of pixels? It is helping, thanks!

EDIT: KnightWRX below kind of answered it:

That's different. Like you say, this has to do with native resolution on the LCD vs a lower resolution. The system thus can't fit the pixels on the screen like it can on an analogue display since LCDs have a fixed number of pixels. Thus you're trying to display 1 pixel in something like 1.3 pixel of width.

A pixel can't be 2 colors, so the monitor has to compensate by doing some blending. This is what results in the blurry image at non-native resolution.

Can you lower an LCD display from its native resolution and have a perfect 2 pixels to 1 ratio (e.g. 1440x900 down to 720x450), as opposed to trying to fit 1 pixel into the likes of 1.3 pixels width? Would all elements look as sharp as they would on a 15" 720x450 native display?